DONALD J. TRUMP, until now a Republican problem, this week became a challenge the nation must confront and overcome. The real estate tycoon is uniquely unqualified to serve as president, in experience and temperament. He is mounting a campaign of snarl and sneer, not substance. To the extent he has views, they are wrong in their diagnosis of Americas problems and dangerous in their proposed solutions. Mr. Trumps politics of denigration and division could strain the bonds that have held a diverse nation together. His contempt for constitutional norms might reveal the nations two-century-old experiment in checks and balances to be more fragile than we knew.

Any one of these characteristics would be disqualifying; together, they make Mr. Trump a peril. We recognize that this is not the usual moment to make such a statement. In an ordinary election year, we would acknowledge the Republican nominee, move on to the Democratic convention and spend the following months, like other voters, evaluating the candidates performance in debates, on the stump and in position papers. This year we will follow the campaign as always, offering honest views on all the candidates. But we cannot salute the Republican nominee or pretend that we might endorse him this fall. A Trump presidency would be dangerous for the nation and the world.

Why are we so sure? Start with experience. It has been 64 years since a major party nominated anyone for president who did not have electoral experience. That experiment turned out pretty well  but Mr. Trump, to put it mildly, is no Dwight David Eisenhower.

Me repudiating this article will be the longest post I've done. That said, there are a couple points that I need help addressing/repudiating. I will put those points in post 2. I will say that this article proves once and for all why Trump revoked their press credentials. There is no reason Trump supporters should respect this paper after this. The Washington Post bemoans that Trump wants to "constrict the free and independent press." Trump has said he will not tamper with the White House Press Pool, but not allowing the Washington Post into his campaign when they are only trying to destroy him isn't a bad idea. By the way, when was Hillary's last press conference?

To the extent he has views, they are wrong in their diagnosis of Americas problems and dangerous in their proposed solutions.

Of course. They dont diagnose liberal concerns as problems, and they address things liberals dont consider problems at all. I am certain that Washington Post believes only a Democrat mind set can properly diagnose America and propose solutions.

Mr. Trumps politics of denigration and division could strain the bonds that have held a diverse nation together.

The delusion here is strong that I can only presume the Washington Post editorial board is living in an alternate universe. Were so united right now we have BLM saying our police departments are murdering black people and people murdering cops.

His contempt for constitutional norms

http://www.infowars.com/75-times-obama-broke-law-during-presidency/

This year we will follow the campaign as always, offering honest views on all the candidates. But we cannot salute the Republican nominee or pretend that we might endorse him this fall.

LOL! Honest views? Like anyone, EVER, EVER thought you would endorse Trump. Besos would never allow it. Thats why he hired a team of 20 of you to take down Trump. By the way, I doubt you would ever endorse a Republican for President when you can have the Democrat.

The Washington Post Accuses Trump of Lying About Seeing Muslims Celebrate In NJ after 9/11:

We KNOW for a fact the Orlando gunman celebrated. He was in school at the time. He was still a youth. You think he came up with that alone? Kids are highly influenced by parents and community at that age. If he was surrounded by parents and people who condemned the attack, why would he celebrate alone? I'll continue with sources, though:

Now, Former New York Police Department Commissioner Bernard Kerik has vindicated Trump in his claims, noting that there were many post-9/11 celebrations by NYC-area Muslims.

Just a couple of blocks away from that Jersey City apartment the F.B.I. raided yesterday and had evidence removed, there is another apartment building, one that investigators told me, quote, was swarming with suspects  suspects who Im told were cheering on the roof when they saw the planes slam into the Trade Center. Police were called to the building by neighbors and found eight men celebrating, six of them tenants in the building.

The F.B.I. and other terrorist task force agencies arrived, and the older investigators on the task force recalled that they had been to this building before, eight years ago, when the first World Trade Center attack led them to Sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, whose Jersey City mosque lies between the two buildings getting attention today. And the older investigators remember that the suspects that eventually got convicted for the first Trade Center case lived in the building where these same eight men were celebrating the destruction that they saw from the roof. Calling this a hot address, the task force investigators ordered everyone detained.

This disqualifies him over Hillary how? The GOP has a list of 22 Clinton flip flops for this election, WaPo, not that youll care:

https://www.gop.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-hillarys-flip-flops/

The Washington Post Says Donald Trump Flip Flopped On His Muslim Ban:

Thats an exaggeration. He has refined his policy to ban immigration from countries with a high level of terrorism.

The Washington Post Says Trump Flip Flopped On Punishing Women Who Get Abortions:

Abortion was not an issue Trump was familiar with, but he actually gave a logically consistent answer to a hypothetical. Thats all it was. That will not be his policy as President, and that was clarified within a day. If abortion ever became illegal, the policy would be what it was prior to Roe  go after the abortionists.

The Washington Post Says Trump Calls Our Existing Trade Deals Stupid, But They Say He Neglects To Say How He Will Improve Them:

The Washington Post Says Donald Trump Says ISIS Should Be Destroyed But Has Unfurled No Real Plans For It To Be Done:

Anything is better than the strategy the Democrats have employed. Hillary is Obamas third term, and ISIS is attacking what seems like weekly at this point. Trump has solid people around him like General Flynn and will have an entire foreign policy team like every other President. Hes not going to be in a vacuum. He has said, though, that he thinks there should be bombing, NATO troops, at least a small amount of American troops, and Turkey should be involved.

The Washington Post Says Trump Doesnt Tell Us How He Will Deport 11 Million Illegal Immigrants:

Donald Trump gives a plan to deport a good deal of illegal immigrants on his website. He says (and you can check his website for the in depth):

Triple the number of ICE officers.

Nationwide e-verify.

Mandatory return of all criminal aliens.

Detentionnot catch-and-release.

Defund sanctuary cities.

Enhanced penalties for overstaying a visa.

Cooperate with local gang task forces.

End birthright citizenship.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

The Washington Post Says Trump Says, Allies Are Taking Advantage Of The United States.

Is it false we have large trade deficits with some of our allies? Is it false that some members of NATO dont pay enough? Is it false we are paying a significant cost to put our military in some of these countries and perhaps we should be paid more?

In what may be the BIGGEST whopper of the entire article, The Washington Post then says:

Immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans and take jobs that no one else will

Donald Trump is referring to ILLEGAL immigrants. This is completely disingenuous. On that stage the other night at the debate we saw people who lost their loved ones to crimes committed by illegal immigrants. Of course illegal immigrants take jobs. Thats why they come over, and it saves companies from having to pay the full wage to Americans.

In the absence of comprehensive data, FoxNews.com examined a patchwork of local, state and federal statistics that revealed a wildly disproportionate number of murderers, rapists and drug dealers are crossing into the U.S. amid the wave of hard-working families seeking a better life. The explosive figures show illegal immigrants are three times as likely to be convicted of murder as members of the general population and account for far more crimes than their 3.5-percent share of the U.S. population would suggest. Critics say it is no accident that local, state and federal governments go to great lengths to keep the data under wraps.

(Snip)

FoxNews.com did review reports from immigration reform groups and various government agencies, including the U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Sentencing Commission, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Government Accountability Office, the Bureau of Justice Statistics and several state and county correctional departments. Statistics show the estimated 11.7 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. account for 13.6 percent of all offenders sentenced for crimes committed in the U.S. Twelve percent of murder sentences, 20 percent of kidnapping sentences and 16 percent of drug trafficking sentences are meted out to illegal immigrants.

There are approximately 2.1 million legal or illegal immigrants with criminal convictions living free or behind bars in the U.S., according to ICE's Secure Communities office. Each year, about 900,000 legal and illegal immigrants are arrested, and 700,000 are released from jail, prison, or probation. ICE estimates that there are more than 1.2 million criminal aliens at large in the U.S.

In the most recent figures available, a Government Accountability Office report titled, "Criminal Alien Statistics," found there were 55,000 illegal immigrants in federal prison and 296,000 in state and local lockups in 2011. Experts agree those figures have almost certainly risen, although executive orders from the Obama administration may have changed the status of thousands who previously would have been counted as illegal immigrants.

Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrant criminals are being deported. In 2014, ICE removed 315,943 criminal illegal immigrants nationwide, 85 percent of whom had previously been convicted of a criminal offense. But that same year, ICE released onto U.S. streets another 30,558 criminal illegal immigrants with a combined 79,059 criminal convictions including 86 homicides, 186 kidnappings, and thousands of sexual assaults, domestic violence assaults and DUIs, Vaughan said. As of August, ICE had already released at least 10,246 criminal aliens.

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency in 2015 decided not to deport but release 19,723 criminal illegal immigrants, including 208 convicted of murder, over 900 convicted of sex crimes and 12,307 of drunk driving, according to new government numbers.

Overall, those released into virtually every state and territory of America had a total of 64,197 convictions among them, for an average of 3.25 convictions each, according to an analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies. ICE also said that the group were convicted of 8,234 violent crimes.

Should we have a completely open border so that anyone can come in the United States of America? Sanders replied, after MSNBCs Alex Seitz-Wald asked the Senator about his position. If that were to happen, which I strongly disagree with, there is no question in my mind that that would substantially lower wages in this country.

Did Donald Trump ever say that all Muslims hate America? Id like a link to that. Donald Trump has spoke out against Radical Islamic Terrorism. Also, he cited a Pew Poll. If you look at a recent Pew Poll that came out just this month, you will see that in many Muslim countries, there is a very high portion of Muslims who support Sharia law. Sharia law is incompatible with our Constitution.

Donald Trump also sited this online survey which the liberals have dismissed:

According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.

When that question was put to the broader U.S. population, the overwhelming majority held that shariah should not displace the U.S. Constitution (86% to 2%).

More than half (51%) of U.S. Muslims polled also believe either that they should have the choice of American or shariah courts, or that they should have their own tribunals to apply shariah. Only 39% of those polled said that Muslims in the U.S. should be subject to American courts.

These notions were powerfully rejected by the broader population according to the Centers earlier national survey. It found by a margin of 92%-2% that Muslims should be subject to the same courts as other citizens, rather than have their own courts and tribunals here in the U.S.

Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.

WaPo Quote: Muslims are the primary victims of Islamist terrorism, and Muslim Americans, including thousands who have served in the military, are as patriotic as anyone else.

Your point, WaPo? All the more reason for Trump to root out the bad apples of ISIS. No one has said all Muslims hate America, even Trump said it wasnt the majority.

The Washington Post Says Donald Trump Launched His Campaign By Accusing Mexico Of Sending Rapists Across The Border:

Perhaps the Washington Post can now prove that there are no rapist that come across the border from Mexico. How many people have been raped by illegal immigrants, WaPo? We saw in 2014 that thousands with sexual assault charges were released as well as over 900 last year.

The Washington Post Accuses Trump Of Wanting To Abandon NATO:

Donald Trump does not want to abandon NATO. He wants it refined to our modern age to cover terror, and he would like every member to pay their fair share. If Donald Trump sits down at negotiations and tells NATO that he wants them to pay up but then proceeds to tell them he is going to jump to their aid no matter what, exactly what incentive do they have to pay up?

He never encouraged them. He has said they are relying on our protection, and they should be compensating us more. He said he would rather they not have them, but if they arent compensating us enough, maybe they should defend themselves. Their enemies have nuclear weapons. However, at his rallies, he has said he would prefer they not.

The Washington Post Accuses Trump Of Cozying Up To Dictators:

They actually wrote an article about that entitled, Trumps favorite dictators: In reviled tyrants, GOP nominee finds traits to praise

I spent a lot of time doing a post just like this one addressing the claims in that article. This is long enough, but you can check it out here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3447068/posts

Heres an opinion piece from the WaPo about Obama cozying up to dictators:

The Washington Post Says That Donald Trump Has Vowed To Torture Terrorist Suspects And Bomb Their Families Whether It is Illegal Or Not

His main thing has been waterboarding, of course the libs declare that as torture. If someone has info of an imminent attack and they arent talking, wouldnt it be better to waterboard them as a last resort than let Americans die?

But in a statement Friday, Trump said that he understands "that the United States is bound by laws and treaties" and that he would "not order our military or other officials to violate those laws and will seek their advice on such matters."

He added, "I will not order a military officer to disobey the law. It is clear that as president I will be bound by laws just like all Americans and I will meet those responsibilities."

Obama, however, has killed many innocents or family members in drone strikes.

Barack Obama has claimed that drone and other airstrikes, his favored tactics of war, have killed between 64 and 116 civilians during his administration, a tally which was criticized as undercounted even before Fridays announcement.

(Snip)

Yet the count is also incomplete, leaving out the civilian toll from drone strikes in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq. Nor did the administration go into detail about where the strikes occur, citing what an official told reporters on Friday were diplomatic sensitivities, even as it presented the assessment as a significant advance in transparency. The Guardian has filed a freedom of information act request for records relating to the civilian-death assessment in the US bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria, where thus far the US military has concluded it has killed 36 civilians since summer 2015.

The upper limit of the civilian death toll from drones stands at more than 800 people in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, during the time period Obamas drones tally covered. But that and similar accounts are imprecise, owing to both official secrecy and the difficulties of fact-finding and verifying in some of the worlds most dangerous places. In some cases, human rights groups have found that strikes intending to kill specific terrorist leaders killed many more people.

In 2013, senior Republican senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said that drone strikes had killed 4,700 people, some 2,000 more deaths than the upper limit the administration released on Friday.

While many within the legal and human rights communities applauded the voluntary disclosure of casualty data and the executive order as a step in the right direction, some felt the Friday news dump fell short in key areas.

Its hard to credit this death count, which is lower than all independent assessments, Hina Shamsi, the director of the ACLUs National Security Project, told The Intercept.

Organizations such as the Long War Journal, the New America Foundation, and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimate that at least 200 and as many as 1,000 civilians have been killed by American drone strikes in nations where the U.S. is not at war since Obama took office. The administration offered no individualized accounts to explain where its numbers came from, or who the civilian casualties were. Without the government addressing individual cases, disclosing the identities of those killed, or providing detailed information on the investigations undergirding its conclusions, Shamsi contended, little could be done with the disclosures.

(Snip)

While the administrations report was short on details, it did push back on claims that U.S. officials have, over the years, maintained a practice of labeling military-aged males killed in drone strikes as militants unless evidence is produced indicating otherwise. Males of military age may be non-combatants; it is not the case that all military-aged males in the vicinity of a target are deemed to be combatants, it said.

The governments insistence that it does not label dead young men as militants by default contradicted years of reporting from multiple news organizations (just this week, former military and intelligence officials speaking to the Los Angeles Times confirmed that had been a practice under the Obama administration until recently).

That was a campaign blunder for Trump because, while I think the campaign should have used a different tactic to go after the release of documents from the case, it was articulated poorly. Trump should have used that in connection with La Raza. I know, I know, the media will tell me there are two La Razas, but the La Raza this judge belonged to is a political group:

SDLRLA is a non-partisan organization which takes great pride in its political activity. This organization was founded so that it could advance the Latino community through political activity and advocacy. As we well realize, the only way to effect change is to demand change by engaging the political system. Today, SDLRLA does this through two vehicles; its Political Affairs Committee and its Political Action Committee.

The Political Affairs Committee is tasked by the Board of Directors to oversee all aspects of the Associations political efforts. The Political Affairs Committee has led the Associations efforts to push the state legislature for a reinvestment in our judicial system, has organized two major San Diego mayoral candidate forums, and is acting as the liaison to support the National Association of Latino Elected Officials 2014 convention in San Diego, June 26-28.

The Political Action Committee (PAC) is a separate entity comprised of community leaders and board members that oversee all aspects of the Associations lobbying efforts. The PAC makes decisions on how to contribute the PACs money to support candidates and causes that are aligned with the Associations mission and values.

http://sdlrla.com/about-our-work/

They make endorsements:

http://sdlrla.com/endorsements/

On the side of their website, the link to various groups. One of them is Border Angels. Border Angels helps illegal immigrants and is pro-illegal immigrant:

http://www.borderangels.org/faq/

The Daily Caller lists these organizations:

Meet The Pro-Illegal Immigrant Groups The La Raza Lawyers Of San Diego Consider Part Of Their Community

The SDLRLAs website includes a side-panel on their site titled Community which includes links to a variety of groups, including the National Council of La Raza.

Please note, the San Diego Lawyers Association is not affiliated with the National La Raza Council, the president of the SDLRLA, Luis O. Osuna, told The Daily Caller in a statement. However, this link is not the only connection between the SDLRLA and the National Council of La Raza. The San Diego previously publicized a La Raza announcement in 2012 about gay marriage.

The SDLRLA is also an affiliate of the Hispanic National Bar Association. The former president of this group, Rafael Santiago, was on the board of the National Council of La Raza. La Raza views itself as a non-radical Latino advocacy group, but Hispanic civil rights leader Cesar Chavez called the movement anti-gringo.

(Snip)

Donald Trump has come out strongly against Judge Curiel saying he cant be impartial because of his Mexican heritage. Likewise, the National Council of La Raza has come out strongly against Trump. The groups president has previously accused Trump of bigotry. The NCLR has also previously called President Barack Obama deporter-in-chief.

However, the NCLR is not the only group the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association associates with that takes issues with Trump and his policies. Another group linked as part of the SDLRLAs community is Reality Changers, which provides scholarships to low-income youth, some of which are illegal immigrants. It was previously reported by TheDC that Judge Curiel was on a selection committee that gave a scholarship to an illegal alien.

MANA de San Diego is also listed on the community page of the SDLRLA and likewise to Reality Changers they offer scholarships to illegal immigrant youth. Another group in the community is MALDEF. MALDEF previously spearheaded a lawsuit against several colleges for denying admission to illegal aliens.

Alliance San Diego is likewise linked to by the SDLRLA and a recent post on their site is, Latinos allege excessive policing after Trump protests. Alliance San Diego has come out strongly in support of Obamas executive actions providing amnesty.

Another group that SDLRLA considers part of their community is Border Angels. The founder of Border Angels opposed the most recent immigration reform bill, Gang of Eight, because it is not humane, as it would double the size of the Border Patrol and double the size of the wall.

San Diego Dream Team is another organization linked to the SDLRLA. The group recently tweeted out their displeasure with deportation raids from the Obama administration. San Diego will NOT stand for hate, militarization of our communities/separation of families#StopTheHate #HereToStay, the group wrote on May 27.

The judge was involved in giving a scholarship to an illegal immigrant:

Judge Presiding Over Trump University Case Is Member Of La Raza Lawyers Group [VIDEO]

United States District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, the man presiding over the class-action lawsuit against Trump University, is a member of the La Raza Lawyers of San Diego and oversaw the gift of a law school scholarship to an illegal alien.

Report: Trump University Judge Linked to Group that Calls for Boycott of Trumps Businesses

Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who is overseeing a fraud case against Trump University, is reportedly a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, which is affiliated with the Hispanic National Bar Association.

The Hispanic National Bar Association sent out a press release last summer after Donald Trump, who is now the presumptive Republican nominee, announced he was running for president and created a controversy by discussing illegal immigration and crime during his announcement speech.

The press release stated the organizations mission to target Trumps business interests, according to the Conservative Treehouse.

By his recent derogatory remarks about Mexican immigrants, Donald Trumps disrespect of such a large segment of the population of America is not only unbelievable but outright wrong, the press release states. His comment that Mexico only sends rapists and criminals to the United States reveals a racist nature that cannot and will not go unnoticed by the Hispanic National Bar Association nor the Latino community.

The press release adds:

The HNBA calls for a boycott of all of Trump business ventures, including golf courses, hotels, and restaurants. We salute NBC/Universal, Univision and Macys for ending their association with Trump, and we join them in standing up against bigotry and racist rhetoric. Other businesses and corporations should follow the lead of NBC/Universal, Univision and Macys and take similar actions against Donald Trumps business interests. We can and will make a difference.

The Washington Post Says Trump Has Encouraged Violence At His Rallies:

Donald Trump had a problem where people were coming to his rallies and causing big scenes. They would yell until they would have to be taken out. Sometimes there would be obscene signs. There were three incidences I can think of at his rallies with the exception of maybe people ripping away some signs. The one was an older man, and the black man who he punched gave him the finger right in front of him when being taken out. Should he have punched him? No! However, thats considered very disrespectful to someone of his generation or anyone really. The other was when the black man got angry because a white guy had a confederate flag and the protester behind her had a kkk mask on, implying that Trump was racist and he was supporting a racist. Of course he was mad. Should he have done it? No, but if this happened at a Democrat rally, they would have defended this man. There was one other where a black girl was getting shoved a bit, but we dont see what she said that angered those older men. Should they have shoved her? No! I just dont know the full story. Another time he told someone to knock the crap out of someone is when he was told that a protester had tomatoes. He said to knock the crap out of them if they saw them about to throw a tomato.

At rallies today, people are told to chant Trumps name if they see a protester. Trump stresses over and over again not to hurt the protester. It is illegal for them to be protesting, and he could push legal charges if he wanted to. He doesnt.

The media never wanted to address the fact that it was liberals coming into these things, causing a huge scene, and even causing violence outside. They shut down a rally in Chicago because they were so violent. They would block the entrance to the door, smash doors, tip over barricades, harass people entering and leaving the rallies, they hunted people and attacked people in places like San Jose. Police officers have gotten hurt. Theyve shut down roads and highways. Cities have to send out lots of police and be well organized because the threat of violence is so grave. Donald Trump himself had to cross a highway barrier to speak at one event in California. Donald Trump never asked those people to come out. They chose to, and some were paid to. Imagine if our people did this, at their rallies. Just imagine. The media wouldnt let the world forget it.

This black police officer went to a Trump rally, and he saw what was up. He said he wasnt afraid of the Trump supporters. He was afraid of the protesters, and he was not a Trump supporter.

Police Officer talks about his experience at Trump's rally in Tucson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjyxZ7HO7aY

The Washington Post Attacks Trump On Attacking Ted Cruzs Wife and Father

For the record, Donald Trump was responding to an attack on Melania and attacks by Cruzs father. I detailed all of this with a timeline as well in a long post here in post 1:

Vince Foster is what they are referring to. Honestly, I was too young at the time to follow the case, but I watched part of this interesting documentary on the Vince Foster case. There were a lot of questions for sure. Watch for yourself if interested. For the record, Im not personally accusing Hillary of anything. Im just saying this documentary points out some interesting things about this case:

Vince Foster's death

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AM3rWX4g5o

Trump barely brought this up, and lest I can tell has not been a campaign point he has used against her at rallies, on Twitter, in the online ads or his Lyin Crooked Hillary website. I havent seen this as a fixture of his campaign more than a comment made.

The Washington Post Says Donald Trump Says Obama Is A Traitor Who Wants Muslims To Attack

The Washington Post originally said Donald Trump accused Obama of being involved in Orlando. They changed their headline to this. This cost them their press credentials, so thats what Trump thinks about that.

The Washington Post says Republicans know this stuff to be true, and that is why Republicans werent there and he had to rely on testimony of friends and family.

There were plenty of Republicans there including the Speaker, Senate Leader, and Whip, Governors, Senators, and Congressmen. So far as the Bush family, they were bitter because Trump destroyed Jeb! and ruined the dynasty. Kasich is a bitter, nasty, childish individual. Thats why he stayed in when he was 4th in a 3 man race. He made a fool of himself. Second of all, there were other people there like the Benghazi mother, families who lost illegals, pastors, conservative leaders like Falwell, Perkins, and Ingraham. As far as his family and friends, that gives us a look at who the man is, not the media spin on him.

The Washington Post Concludes They Can Trust Hillary Clinton To Protect The Constitution

This is after she set up a server in her basement, sent classified material subject to hacking, and lied about it. This is after her Benghazi fiasco. This is after ISIS grew under her watch.

The Washington Post goes on to downplay Trumps business success by saying he was staked in the family business by his father. They then say that his real estate business has some success and some failure. They act as though its evenly split. He was staked in the family business by a well-to-do father and has pursued a career marked by some real estate successes, some failures and repeated episodes of saving his own hide while harming people who trusted him.

The Washington Post attacks Trumps business record has some real estate success and some failures. They make it sound like its a split. Does anyone know Trumps record of success? He currently has 515 businesses I have read.

Second The Washington Post says Trump was supported the Iraq war until after it started. Anyone have an info on that? That is one thing the liberal reporters keep posting about Trump is that about Iraq. Im sure that will be a debate point of Hillary.

Finally, the Washington Post says that Trump will raise the deficit, and they are using this:

>The Washington Post attacks Trumps business record has some real estate success and some failures. They make it sound like its a split. Does anyone know Trumps record of success? He currently has 515 businesses I have read.

His initial capital from his father was 1m. He turned that into 2bil. I’d call that a big successes. The only type of businessmen who never fail are those who get hooked up with the federal government for protection. People will claim that Trump got 300 Mil from his fathers estate, but his father died after Trump was already a billionaire and his net total from the 300mil estate was 30mil(The others kids got the rest).

>Second The Washington Post says Trump was supported the Iraq war until after it started. Anyone have an info on that? That is one thing the liberal reporters keep posting about Trump is that about Iraq. Im sure that will be a debate point of Hillary.

There’s nothing about Trump against the war in Iraq until about a year in. However, there’s nothing about him in support of the war either. He may have opposed it quietly or the media deleted the tapes of him publicly opposing it to help Hillary. The media works for her after all.

>Finally, the Washington Post says that Trump will raise the deficit, and they are using this:

Trump’s biggest plan for Washington DC is to Axe about 1/4 of the public sector workers who do nothing but are not fired. The cost savings from that alone will pay for most of his programs. If he’s able to disentangle the regulator system that’s killing us then GDP will jump by 8-15% a year for quite a while.

After seven and a half years of Queen Putt, the Marxist, Mooslim, Kenyan, Steaming Pant Load, Sissy Boy, Race Baiting Poverty Pimp Goat humping, Allah FUBAR screaming Sand Uyghur doing EXACTLY what they accuse Trump of being likely to do the ComPost has proven again it is not good enough to line the bottoms of birdcages with.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.